steel magnates and the labor magnates are now threatening to do? There should be some power lodged in the people to say to these contending forces that they must stop fighting and resume operations in peace and harmony. The people of the United States are not ready to submit to the domination of an oligarchy of capital or of an oligarchy of labor, or to the joint rule of the two. They should demonstrate that now, to the end that the wheels of industry may once more be started and that there shall not be a check to the prosperity which the country has enjoyed."

The open sympathy of Mayor Black, of McKeesport, and Mayor Long, of Pomeroy, Ohio, with the strikers, and their avowed intention to assist the strikers with the local police and deputy sheriffs, if necessary, is in line with the Socialist comment quoted in the article below. The trust proposes to checkmate the McKeesport mayor by removing their mills from that city to a more favorable locality. Many of the newspapers blame Mr. Morgan for the intense hostility to union labor shown during this strike, but the New York Wall Street Journal says:

"The policy of the steel company in this matter is supposed to be dominated to a large extent by Mr. Schwab, whose experiences with organized labor in the Carnegie works naturally led him to take strong ground against any policy which threatened to increase the strength of labor unions in the steel company's mills. People familiar with the personality of the gentlemen at the head of the steel combination felt confident that there would be no settlement as soon as it was known that Mr. Schwab was to attend the conference. The same people feel equally sure that Mr. Schwab is disposed to deal with the labor question now believing that the sooner questions at issue are settled the better it will be for all concerned."

break their efforts toward increasing their wages, because it means that much taken away from their profits."

The idea finds frequent expression in the Socialist papers that if the workingmen controlled the Government, the militia would be used to compel the submission, not of men, but of the employers. Thus the Girard (Kan.) Appeal to Reason says:

"Working people who are so stupid as to be Republicans and Democrats rather than vote for their own interests can not be treated too mean by the corporations. If these strikers had voted Socialists into office, they would all have been sworn in as deputies and armed and paid $2 a day during the dispute. They could stand a strike of that kind as long as the steel trust. But they have voted for the tools of the trusts, have made them sher

RADICAL PRESS ON THE STEEL STRIKE.

THE

HE Socialist and labor papers find in the steel strike a splendid opportunity to reassert the opinion that the capitalist is the workingman's worst enemy, and to urge the workingmen to unite in one political party, seize the Government, and overthrow this capitalist oligarchy. The Cleveland Citizen, for example, exclaims: "This mammoth attack upon capitalism has but one meaning: LABOR, THE PRODUCER OF ALL WEALTH, WANTS THE WEALTH IT PRODUCES! Robbed as producers in the shops, and as consumers as well, by organized bands of capitalistic pirates, the working class is awakening and demanding justice. Let class-conscious Labor carry its fight to the polls also, and smash the capitalistic parties and lying politicians." The Freemen's Labor Journal (Spokane) predicts that "the managers of the trusts, in refusing to recognize the union men, are evidently planning for a reduction of wages in the near future," as "a disruption of the association, and the organization would pave the way for a cut in wages." And The Missouri Socialist (St. Louis), in a similar line of thought, remarks that "surely this fight should show to every workingman the absolute untruth of the old story of our employers, that 'the interests of capital and labor are identical,'" and it goes on to say:

"If the statement of the identity of interest of capitalist and laborer be true, then as increased wages benefit the working class it must also benefit the capitalist class. But is this statement true? If it is, why does the capitalist object whenever the working class demand an increased wage?

"If their interests are identical, it would seem that self-interest would compel the capitalist to assist the worker in the increase of his wages. The exact contrary, however, is true. The interests of the working class, of the 50,000 men now on strike, are directly opposed to the capitalist class, the steel trust as it happens in this case. Thus it is that instead of helping the working class the capitalists do everything in their power to

ONE ON US.

JOHN BULL: "You're liable to lose your grip on that hammer, uncle, if you don't watch out." -The Minneapolis Tribune.

iffs and judges, and behold now, they are met in the field by the hirelings of capital-the men they have elected. WILL THIS STRIKE TEACH YOU ANYTHING? If it does, it will be cheap at any cost. If it does not, you are not worth any better treatment than you are getting from the steel trust. You could. yet get some consideration from sheriffs and judges if you didn't put out all your energy on the foolish or hungry non-union men." And the Chicago Social Democratic Herald says similarly: "The money power, in the interest of capital, controls legislation, the judicial machine, and the army, and injunctions and marshals and troops can be called out to aid capital, utterly regardless of the rights of labor; such is history, and history repeats itself every time labor locks horns with capital. A dispassionate review of the situation is not favorable to labor. But it may be said it sowed to the wind of Republicanism and is reaping the whirlwind of calamities. And, after all, this may turn out to be a great blessing to labor and to the country. It will afford workingmen a reason for abandoning all the old plutocratic, labor-robbing parties and impress them with the propriety of casting their lot with the great Socialist organization and in the future cast their conquering ballots to push forward the civilizing, redeeming, and harmonizing sway of Socialism."

The conflict between capitalist and laborer "must ultimately be fought to a finish that will mean the extinction of one of the combatants," declares the Chicago Workers' Call; but, it continues:

"The folly of supposing that a permanent cessation of hostilities can be reached without a complete change of the economic basis of production and distribution appears unmistakably evident.

"The workers may win what is known as a 'victory' through the methods they propose to use. This at best merely means that they will have to recommence the combat again after a short

temporary truce. Such victories are Dead Sea fruit that invariably turn to dust and ashes on the lips of the victors. It may sound disagreeable to make this assertion; nevertheless time (and not such a long time either) will prove its truth. Complete and decisive victory is not possible to either of the combatants. While the laborers choose as battleground the economic field, their victories are little if anything better than defeats. When they shift the scene of operations to the political arena, victory, complete, lasting, and undeniable, is not only possible but inevitable. On that ground they are strong and their opponents weak; on the other, the positions are reversed. . . .

"The real struggle for the product of labor will then begin, the objective point of the workers then being the law-making power now in the control of the enemy. That once wrested from him, his extinction as a class and the abolition of his power to appropriate the labor product of others through private ownership of the means of production follows with the accuracy of a mathematical demonstration."

A

SENATOR TILLMAN ON LYNCHING.

GOOD deal of criticism is aroused by Senator Tillman's speech at the Chautauqua assembly at Marinette, Wis., on the evening of August 3. The press despatches do not give a verbatim report of his remarks, but say that he "condemned Booker Washington's scheme of educating the negro," that he "made an eloquent plea in justification of lynching," and that he declared that "the niggers are not fit to vote." The white people of the South, he said, would remain on top "in spite of the devil," and if necessary he and his brethren were ready to take down their shotguns again. The despatches add that "his remarks on lynching were heartily applauded."

The Providence Journal (Ind.) thinks that such sentiments are "nothing short of incendiary," and the Chicago Chronicle (Dem.) calls the speech "an address which for atrocity and indecency has never, it is believed, been equaled in the civilized parts of the United States." "Why any committee of respectable persons should invite Senator Tillman of South Carolina to

-The Minneapolis Journal. address an assembly of decent Northern people," says the Chicago Journal (Ind.), "is hard to imagine," and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (Rep.) agrees that "it is a wonder that he can get a hearing in any reputable community." The Philadelphia Press (Rep.) says: "He disgraces not only the Senate and the State he pretends to represent, but the whole nation." Most of the Southern papers make no comment on the Senator's speech. The Columbia State (Dem.), however, observes:

"Senator Tillman's Sunday speech displayed his characteristic brutality and his usual disregard for facts. It is bad enough to have had for twelve years his uncouth swaggering inflicted on the people of his own State, but it is even worse when he goes out as a representative of South Carolina and makes a show of his defiance of law and culture. . . . How can we expect people to regard us as other than uncivilized and barbarous when a South Carolina Senator boastingly defends mob murders? What sort of figure do we cut in the eyes of the world when this eminent Southern statesman decries the work of uplifting a race debased through no fault of its own? We must, according to Tillman, shoot negroes and hang them because they are evil minded, and at the same time we must discourage every effort to elevate them. Is that just? Is it generous, is it humane or even civilized?"

Governor Candler, of Georgia, a few days ago, averted a probable lynching by sending a negro prisoner from the jail to the court-house and back under escort of three companies of militia. The Constitutional Convention of Alabama has added to their proposed state constitution a provision authorizing the governor to remove a sheriff who fails to defend a prisoner against mob violence. In this provision, remarks the Providence Journal, "there is welcome assurance that Southern sentiment will bring about its own revulsion against lynching, and that that phase of the negro problem will in the end be solved by the only people capable of solving it: those who have faced it for a generation and who understand it."

THE

MORE STEPS IN NEGRO DISFRANCHISEMENT. HE adoption of a suffrage plan by the Alabama Constitutional Convention that is likely to bar almost all the blacks in the State from the polls, without barring any of the whites, adds Alabama to the list of Southern States in which the great mass of the negroes will have no vote. The Virginia Constitutional Convention seems likely to adopt a similar plan soon, and the Maryland Democrats declare in their state platform, just adopted, that if they carry the coming election they will take similar measures in that State. The Alabama suffrage plan contains a "grandfather clause" that will admit to the ballot men whose forefathers could vote before the Civil War, so that few, if any, white men will be kept from the polls. The few negroes who possess the required educational and property qualifications will be able to vote. Booker T. Washington, who lives in Alabama, takes occasion to send to the New York Sun the following information, which he considers "quite reassuring": "The last census report shows that in Alabama the total voting population has gained 8.1 per cent. in literacy. The white voting population has gained 2.1 per cent., and the negro voting population has gained 7.3 per cent., showing a much more rapid advance by the negro than by the white voter." The Alabama suffrage measure is quite long and involved, but its main features are given in the following Associated Press despatch from Montgomery:

"The completed suffrage section of the new constitution is in two parts, one to be temporary and the other permanent. In the temporary part is included the hereditary suffrage feature, and a plan to limit suffrage to 'persons of good character and who understand the duties and obligations of citizenship,' a board of registration in each county, appointed by the state officials, to be judges of character and understanding. This plan, if the constitution is approved, is to be in operation until January, 1903.

"With the beginning of 1903 the permanent plan will go into operation. That provides for educational and property qualifications applying impartially to all. Hereafter the negro may vote if he has paid his poll-tax some months in advance, if he can read and write, and if, unless physically disabled, he has been engaged in some lawful business or occupation for the greater part of the twelve months preceding the date of registration. This last is aimed at a class of young negroes, said to be

numerous in the Southern cities, who have been to school but who are too lazy to work. As first drafted, this provision required that employment be continuous for the twelve months, but it was modified for fear that it would deprive white strikers of the franchise. Failing in the educational requirement, any citizen may vote who, by himself or his wife, owns forty acres of land or pays taxes on $300 worth of property."

The "grandfather" clause calls out a good deal of discussion. In Louisiana only a few hundred voters have ever availed themselves of this method of getting the ballot, and the New Orleans Times-Democrat (Dem.) thinks that this has "made it very clear that it was unwise for their benefit to experiment with a suffrage the constitutionality of which was so gravely doubted by leading Democratic Senators." The Afro-American League have begun a suit in New Orleans which they intend to carry to

at all relieve the peculiar political conditions in the South, those outside the South remaining as they have been for thirty-five years, if every black and colored man of voting age were a graduate of Yale or Harvard, or any other college. It is not a question of differences in education,' or of ability to read and write, but of such differences as have led the white people of the Pacific States to exclude yellow men from their territory, and have led the white people of the Eastern and Northern States to exclude black and colored men from their homes, factories, and churches, and from their mines and mills-at the muzzle of the rifle on occasion, as on a very recent occasion. It is not a matter of 'fear.' It is not a question of the negro's 'failure' or 'success' in citizenship. It is not a question of his 'brute ignorance' or of his 'human intelligence' or superhuman intelligence. It is a matter simply of the recognition of general and specific natural differences between the two races, which history shows has never been ignored. And our belief is that they will never be ignored in this country."

the United States Supreme Court, to test the constitutionality of the "grandfather" clause, but The Times-Democrat remarks that, even if they succeed, the decision "will not extend the ballot to a single negro, and will strike from the rolls only a few hundred ignorant and propertyless whites." The same paper also notes that the whites now outnumber the blacks in Louisiana, something that has occurred but once before in a hundred years.

The white majority is about 80,000. The New York Journal (Dem.) notes that in Alabama the white literates outnumber the black literates almost three to one, so that" a straight educational qualification would insure white supremacy in Alabama," and it argues that "if Alabama wants her 31,614 ignorant white men to vote she will do better to educate them than to sneak them into the franchise by way of a furtive 'grandfather clause."" Senator Morgan of Alabama, too, objects to this plan because it makes the ballot a hereditary privilege, and he considers hereditary privileges inimical to the spirit of our free institutions.

But the "grandfather" idea is not without defenders. The Raleigh News and Observer (Dem.) believes that an illiterate white man is better than a learned negro, and the Philadelphia Record (Ind.) argues that the long exercise of political rights enjoyed by the illiterate whites of the South has made them as discerning in political matters as the educated whites; while in the case of the negroes of the black belt, "their dense ignorance of all political questions is relieved by no gleam of tradition." The Charleston News and Courier (Dem.) says similarly:

"We have said, many times, that, in our opinion, it would not

The comment of the Afro-American papers is of considerable interest. The Washington Colored American says

"Let suffrage laws apply to all alike-and the whole controversy is at an end. The educated white people of a State should object as strenuously to being governed by a white illiterate as to being outvoted by a black one. If one is 'cut out,' cut them both out, and thus place an honest premium on the suffrage." Says the Washington Bee, similarly:

"Ignorant whites are no more fit to rule than ignorant blacks. The more intelligent white man, South, is inclined to deal more fairly toward the negro than the ignorant whites. Intelligence soon becomes tired of ignorance, be it in the white or the black man. So that the time will come, South, when the ignorant white man will be dethroned, intelligence will rule, and then the black man will demonstrate his superior intellect in the great American body politic. Let us hope for better days, because they will surely come, and come sooner than we may expect."

The New York Age (Afro-American) makes this comment: "If the white men of the South were not blind to the facts of history and of philosophy, they would readily understand that they can not safely deal with free Afro-Americans as they did with Afro-American slaves. Repressive and oppressive legislation has always nurtured discontent and resistance of one sort and another. Mob law, which is no law at all, disfranchisements, separate car laws, peonage laws, separate school laws, separate marriage laws,-one for the white man and another for the black man-these can not but breed a sullen discontent and provoke reprisals of one sort and another in the long or short run. This is the invariable history of mankind in all ages, and it will not be reversed in the case of the Afro-American people. Already sullen discontent has taken possession of the leaders and the mass of the people; already the cordial relations which subsisted between the races at the close of the war are being replaced by distrust and hatred. 'Pity, 'tis true; but true, 'tis pity.' The policy of patience and toleration and justice, in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and mandatory provisions of the federal Constitution, would have borne results which have never yet grown on the tree of repression and oppression."

The Age also publishes statistics from the United States census reports on the subject, just issued, which show that the percentage of illiteracy among the colored voters of Alabama has fallen in the last decade from 69.1 per cent. to 59.5; of Arkansas, from 53.6 to 44.8; of Florida, from 50.6 to 39.4; of Georgia from 67.6 to 56.3. The Age remarks: "Possibly the greatest surprises will be found among the statistics of Delaware and Georgia, when the percentage of illiteracy is placed at 42.7 and 56.3, respectively. It is also a notorious fact that in these States educa

tional qualifications are unnecessary for voting privileges. Does this contribute toward the seeming lethargy of the colored voters in those States? In order to vote in Alabama one must be literate, but the above figures show only 40.5 per cent. of negro voters there able to read or write. It is plain that Booker T. Washing

ton, W. H. Council, and other eminent instructors there have a great work before them."

He's a mimber iv th' Martin Dooley Post No. 1, Definders iv th' Hearth. He's th' boy f'r ye. If iver he beats his sugar scoop into a soord, ye'll think ol' Farragut was a lady cook on a lumber barge.

paign was such as to bring th' bright blush iv shame to ivry man "Says th' historyian: 'Th' conduck iv Schley durin' th' cam

SCHLEY, SAMPSON, MACLAY, AND

"M

DOOLEY."

"MR.

R DOOLEY" has arrived at the conclusion that his chief claim to renown is the fact that he "niver took a hand in th' war in Cubia." Those who did take part in the war, whether in Cuba or the Philippines, he finds, have missed fame by a wide margin.

"First they was Hobson. He kissed a girl an' ivrybody says: 'Hang him. Kill th' coal-scuttler.'

"Thin they was Dewey. He got marrid an' th' people was f'r makin' mathrimony a penal offinse.

"Ye raymimber Gomez. Ye recall, Hinnissy, how th' corryspondints used to poke their way to th' jungle where he set makin' his simple meal iv th' leg iv a scorpyon an' a piece iv sugar-cane, an' offer him th' freedom iv th' city of Noo York whin th' war was over. Well, he wint to Noo York las' week, this George Wash'nton iv th' Ant Hills. He was met at th' ferryboat be a rayporther that twishted his head around to take a phottygraft iv him an' called him 'Manny,' an' said he looked like Mike Feely, th' aldherman iv th' third ward, only darker. A comity iv seegar makers waited on him an' ast him to jine their union, an' that was all th' honors he had.

Freedom iv th' city, says ye? Oh, he got that, an' all iv that. He was free to go an' come without annybody payin' anny attintion to him. He was as free as th' air, because th' polis didn't know him. If they'd known, he might've been locked up. "An' now it's Schley's turn. I knew it was comin' to Schley an' heer it comes. Ye used to think he was a gran' man that

whin ol' Cerveera come out iv th' harbor at Santiago called out 'Come on, boys,' an' plunged into th' Spanish fleet an' rayjooced it to scrap iron.

"That's what ye thought an' that's what I thought, an' we were wrong. We were wrong. Hinnissy. I've been r-readin' a thrue histhry iv th' campaign be wan iv th'gr-reatest history ians now employed as a clerk in th' supply stores iv th' Brooklyn navy yard. Like mesilf, he's a fireside vethran iv th' war.

on th' pay roll iv our beloved counthry. 'Tis well known that whin ordered be th' gallant Jawn D. Long to lave Hampton Roads, he thried to jump overboord an' swim ashore. He was chloryformed an' kep' undher hatches till th' ship was off th' coast iv Floridy.

"Whin he come to, he fainted at th'sight iv a Spanish ditchnry, an' whin a midshipman wint by with a box iv Castile soap, he fell on the deck writhin' in fear an' exclaimed: "Th' war is over. I'm shot."

"Off Cyenfoogoose he see a starvin' reconcentrado on th' shore an' cried out: "There's Cerveera. Tell him to come on boord an' accept me soord."

"He was knocked down be a belayin' pin in th' hands iv th' gunner's mate an' carried to Sandago. Whin th' catiff wretch an' cow'rd see brave Cerveera comin' out iv th' harbor he r-run up th' signal: "Cease firin'. I'm a prisoner."

"Owin' to th' profanity iv dauntless Bob Ivins, which was arisin' in a dark purple column at th' time, Cerveera cud not see this recreent message an' attimpted to r-run away. Th' American admiral followed him like th' cow'rd that he was, describin' a loop that I'd dhraw f'r ye if th' head bookkeeper'd lind me a pincil, an' rammin' the Ioway, th' Massachoosetts an' th' Oregon.

"His face was r-red with fear an' he cried in a voice that cud be heard th' length iv th' ship: "He don't see th' signal. I've surrindered, Cerveera. I'm done. I quit. I'm all in. Come an' take me soord an' cut off me buttons. Boys, fire a few iv thim eight-inch shells an' atthract his attintion. That was a good wan. Give him some more. R-run alongside an' ram him if nicisary. Rake him fore an' aft. There goes his biler. Now, perhaps he'll take notice. Great hivins, we're lost! He's sinkin' befure we can surrinder. Get out me' divin' shoot, boys, an' I'll go afther him an' capitulate. Oh, war is a turrible thing!

"I have attimpted to be fair with Admiral Schley. If I'm not, it's his own fault an' mine. I can on'y add that 'tis th' opinyion iv all th' boys in th' store that he ought to be hanged, drawn, quarthered, burnt at th' stake an' biled in oil as a catiff, cow'rd an' thraitor.

"Tis a good thing f'r th' United States that me frind Sampson come back at th' r-right moment an' with a few well-directed wurruds to a tillygraft operator, secured th' victhry. Ol' Loopin-loops was found lyin' head first in a coal bunker an' whin pulled out be th' legs, exclaimed: "Emanuel, don't shoot me.

I'm a Spanish spy in disgeese." So they've arristed Schley. As soon as th' book come out th' sicrety iv th' navy issued a warrant again him, chargin' him with victhry, an' he's goin' to have to stand thrile f'r it. I don't know what th' punishment is, but 'tis somethin' hard, f'r th' offinse is onusu'l. They're sure to bounce him an' maybe they'll give his job to Cerveera.

"As far as I can see, Hinnissy, an' I cud see as far as me fellow vithran Maclay an' some nine hundred miles farther, Emanuel is th' on'y wan that come out iv that battle with honor. Whin Schley was thryin' to give up th' ship, he was alongside it on a stagin' makin' dents in th' armor plate with a pick axe. Sampson was off writin' letters to himsilf, an' Bob Ivins was locked in a connin' tower with a life-preserver buckled around his waist.

"Noble ol' Cerveera done nowthin' to disgrace his flag. He los' his ships an' his men an' his biler an' ivrything except his ripytation. He saved that be bein' a good swimmer an' not bein' an officer iv th' United States navy.

SALEW

AD

MR.

R. H. T. NEWCOMB, editor of The Railway World, presents in the August Review of Reviews a comprehensive study of the recent railroad consolidations that have excited so much comment. In all this comment, the formation of a great "trust," to control all the railroad transportation in the country, has seemed to be feared more than any other result; but Mr. Newcomb thinks that such a "trust" is not likely to be formed until the railroads in certain more limited regions of the country have been consolidated.

He says:

"How far is the concentration of the control of American railways to go? If the question does not contain any limit of time, it may be answered that the economic advantages of absolute unification of the control are so great that it may be expected that the movement will not cease until unification has been com

mac and Ohio rivers and east of the Mississippi, with the possible exception of those mainly engaged in carrying grain from the Northwestern States to the Gulf of Mexico, are combined. Later a combination of the East and West lines, from the Atlantic to the grain-producing regions and north of the Potomac and Ohio rivers, may be expected. Another probable line of concentration will affect the lines connecting the Mississippi River with the Pacific coast, and this may at first take the form of two separate systems, one north and the other south of the Missouri-Iowa state line. The most spectacular of all propositions, and that most frequently announced in the daily press, is the least likely. There will be no line under one management from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. Such a combination would introduce the very competition that it is the purpose of the leaders of the railway world to prevent. Railway corporations and banking syndicates may seek extra-territorial influence, or may feel the necessity of gaining strategic footholds; but there will be no combinations of railways situated, respectively, east and west of the line formed by the Mississippi River from its mouth to St. Louis, and running from that point to Chicago, until the territorial combinations suggested have been effected. Even these may be long deferred by the difficulty of adjusting conflicting interests and the fact that the conditions, which at the present time are so extremely favorable to railway combinations, are not, in the nature of things, likely long to continue or soon to recur."

Altho Mr. Newcomb says that "there will be no line under one